Allowed

Jitendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2024/1315/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings and a charge sheet filed against the applicant under Sections 354, 506 IPC and 3(1)XI SC/ST Act based on a verified compromise between the parties. The court relied on precedents allowing the quashing of non-compoundable offences in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the entire criminal proceedings, charge sheet, cognizance, and summoning order pending against the applicant.

Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:22227

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1315 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Jitendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vishal Kumar Yadav,Ram Suphal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Kumar Dubey

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Bhoop Chandra Singh, holding brief of Sri Vishal Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Vishwanath Nishad, learned AGA for the State and Sri Vinay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party no.3.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit, the same is taken on record.

¶8

By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed the following main reliefs:-

¶9

"WHEREFORE it is most respectfully prayed that in the above noted facts and circumstances, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings of S.T. No. 01/2017 pending against the petitioner before the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar relating Case Crime No. 65/2012 under section 354, 506 IPC and 3(1)XI SC/ST Act, Police Station - Jalalpur, district - Ambedkar Nagar and quash the charge sheet dated 31.03.2012 filed under section 354, 506 IPC and 3(1)XI SC/ST Act as well as also quash the cognizance and summoning order dated 07.05.2012 passed in case no. 544/2012 which is registered as S.T. No. 01/2017 arising out of case crime no. 65/2012 under section 354, 506 IPC and 3(1)ΧΙ SC/ST Act, Police Station - Jalalpur, district - Ambedkar Nagar on the basis of compromise dated 25.01.2024, so far as it relates with the petitioner in the interest of justice."

¶10

This Court vide order dated 13.02.2024 directed the parties to appear before the trial court concerned and the trial court was directed to verify the contents and parties of the compromise deed.

¶11

In compliance of the aforesaid order, compromise deed was filed before the learned Court below i.e. Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar, who vide order/ report dated 01.03.2024 has verified the contents and parties of the compromise deed and submitted his report to the extent that the parties and contents of the compromise deed are genuine and they have entered into the compromise by free-will.

¶12

Learned counsel for opposite party no.3 has submitted that the parties in dispute are not interested to pursue the criminal case.

¶13

The Apex Court in re: Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 343, has observed that even if the offence(s) in question is / are not compoundable within the scope of Section 320 Cr.P.C. even then considering the facts and circumstances of the case in question the Constitutional Court may allow the parties to compound such offence(s) on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶14

Not only the above, considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in question and other dictums of the Apex Court in re: B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; 2003 (4) SCC 675, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471 and Parbatbhai Ahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are hereby quashed in respect of the present petitioner on the basis of compromise.

¶15

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed .

¶16

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶17

Order Date :- 13.3.2024 RBS/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jitendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anshar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shashank Gupta and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Munnu Lal @ Munendr @ Munendra Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Others

Ashok Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Devendra Dutt and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Syed Hasan Raza Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another